FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, J.-This is an appeal under section 417, Cr. P. C. On behalf of State from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Larkana Mr. Abdul Rehman Shah, dated 3rd March, 1976 whereby the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the 13 accused/respondents who were charged with offences under sections 302, 148/307/149, P. P. C. , for having formed an unlawful assembly armed with guns and revolver and in prosecution of their common object for having committed murders of Abdul Hamid, Nawab, Imamuddin and Mohammad Saleh. The incident had taken place on 20th of November, 1974 at about 9 a. m. In village Chathar Taluka Kambar, which is situated about 5 miles away from the Police Station, Kambar, District Larkana.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the above date complainant Mohammad Kabil and deceased Abdul Hamid were going to their land situated on the east of the village. P. W. Ali Gobar and deceased Imamuddin had also left their village for going to Kambar to attend the hearing of a theft case filed against them by one Ghulam Qadir in the Court of Civil Judge and F. C. M., Kambar.
Deceased Mohammad Saleh and Nawab son of complainant, were accompanying Imamuddin and Ali Gohar to see them off at the bus stand. All the above persons except Ali Gohar are residents of the same village i. e. Chathar, whereas Ali Gohar lived 1J miles away from this village. When all these persons passed by the Otaq of respondent Mohammad Waris in the same village, it is alleged by the prosecution, that all the 13 respondents came out of Otaq. Accused Karimdino armed with revolver while all the rest with guns. Karimdino instigated, other respondents to attack their enemy Imamuddin. Saying this Karimdino fired 'at Imamuddin with revolver. Respondents Mohammad Hussain, Abdul Khaliq, Khuda Bux, Mohammad Waris and Wali Dad also fired with guns at Imamuddin and Nawab who fell down. Imamuddin had walked for 30 paces before he fell down.
Abdul Hamid ran towards the east to save himself while complainant Mohammad Kabil ran towards the south. Respondents Abdul Sattar, Sahabdino, Abdul Karim and Ghulam Rasool chased Abdul Hamid and tired with guns at him who was hit and fell down. Deceased Mohammad Saleh ran towards his house. He was chased by respondents Jan Mohammad, Abdul Hadi and Ali Akbar and overtook him in his house. All the above three respondents fired at Saleh who was hit and fell down. P. W. Haji Dost Mohammad, the brother of deceased Saleh and one Sheral alias Sher Mohammad were present in the house at that time. They were injured by stray pellets of the gun- shots which were fired by the above accused. Momin and Abdul Fattah, it is alleged, were also present in Saleh's house at that time and had seen this part of the incident. As a result of gun-shots and revolver shot. Nawab, Imamuddin, Abdul Hamid and Saleh died at the spot. All the respondents then disappeared from the scene of offence with their guns and revolver. P. Ws. Haji Mohammad and Ziauddin bad also arrived at the spot and seen the incident.
3. Complainant Mohammad Qabil, who is father of deceased Nawab, asked Haji Mohammad and Ziauddin to sit by the dead bodies so that he may go to the Police Station to lodge report. Ali Gohar was also asked to sit near the dead bodies but he went to attend the Court of Civil Judge and F. C.
M. Kambar in connection with theft case as stated above and had returned later.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that about 21 years before this incident one Abdul Karim, father of Karim Dino accused, was murdered. Deceased Imamuddin and others were tried for the murder but were acquitted. The respondents are said to have killed the four unfortunate victim of this incident by way of revenge for the murder of said Abdul Karim, Complainant Qabil went to Kambar Police Station and lodged the report of this incident at 10 a. m. On the same day. The F. I. R. Was recorded by A. S. I Rahim Khan. In the meanwhile Mr. Agha Mir S. I. P. Who was posted at Drigh Police Station, received telephone message from D. S. P. Kambar saying that he should reach Police Station Kambar and taken over investigation of the case.
5. Accordingly Agha Mir obtained copy of the F. I. R. From Mr. Rahim Khan and reached the scene of offence the same day and made inquiries from P. W. Ali Gohar who was present at the spot. On receiving information about the whereabouts of the respondents. Mr. Agha Mir went to the shop of respondent Abdul Khaliq and arrested him. Respon--dents Abdul Hadi, Ali Akbar and Karim Dino were also present there ; they were also arrested in presence of Mashirs, Ahmed Mashooq Shah and Ahmad Ali.
6. At the time of their arrest the above accused persons were found armed with guns and revolver.
Respondent Karim Dino had a loaded revolver with him. Abdul Khaliq bad a gun and two cartridges. Abdul Hadi had a gun and 5 cartridges, while respondent Ali Akbar had a double barrel gun and six cartridges with him. All these arms and amunition were also secured in presence of the same mashirs under a mashirnama which is Exh. 41 on the record of the trial Court.
7. Mr. Agha Mir then inspected the scene of offence which was near the Otaq of accused Waris.
Dead body of Nawab was lying there with gun-shot injuries in a pool of blood. Dead body of Imamuddin was found lying thirty paces away from there. He too had gunshot injuries. About 195 paces away from the dead body of Imamuddin, was lying the dead body of Abdul Hamid in the ploughed land. There were gun-shot injuries on his person and blood on the ground. About 22 paces away from the dead body of Nawab 2 empty cartridges were lying on the ground which were secured and sealed. Blood-stained earth was also secured from the places where the above three dead bodies were lying. The S. H. O. Then went to the house of Mohammad Saleh which was about half furlong away on the north of the place where the dead bodies of Imamud--din, Nawab and Abdul Hamid were lying. Inside the house he found the dead body of Mohammad Saleh lying in the courtyard with gun--shot injuries. There was blood on the ground. Two empty cartridges were also lying on the ground near the dead body which were secured and sealed. Mashirnama of the scene of offence was then prepared in presence of the same mashirs. The Mashirnama is Exh.
42 on the 'trial Court's record.
8. Mr. Agha Mir S. H. O. Then held inquest on the four dead bodies in presence of the same mashirs and despatched the dead bodies through P: C. Ghulam Abbas and P. C. Ghulam Hyder to Medical Officer, Kambar for post-mortem examination on the same day.
9. Dr. Nanik Ram had held the post- mortem examination on the dead bodies. The S. H. O. Had also referred injured Haji Dost Mohammad and Sheral to the same Medical Officer for examination and treatment. He recorded statements of these persons and also of D. W. Abdul Fattah.
10. From this stage onwards further investigation was conducted by Mr. Mohammad Ilyas S. H. O.
Kambar who had returned from the Court while he had gone to give his evidence in some case. He made inquiries from Haji Mohammad Ziab and Momin. Respondent Jan Mohammad appeared at the scene of offence who was arrested in presence of Ahmed Mashooq and Ahmed Ali Mashirs.
This respondent was also carrying a gun and three cartridges with him which were secured. The respondent Mohammad Hussain who was also arrested the same day i.e. 20th Novem--ber, 1974. A gun and licence in the name of his uncle Muzafar Ali are said to have been produced which were secured. Respondents Wali Bux and Abdul Sattar were called to the scene of offence and arrested: Mohammad Waris, Sabo; Ghulam Rasool and Abdul Karim alias Panjo were also arrested on the same day. Licence of the gun of Ali Akbar, respondent, was produced by Abdul Fattah. On the next day i.e. 21st November, 1974 Mr. Mohammad Ilyas S. H. O. Went to Larkana town and arrested accused Khuda Bux from Kennedy Market in presence of Mashirs Ali Gohar (who is other than P. W.
Ali Gohar and Deedar. It is alleged that this accused had led the Police Party consisting of S. H. O.
Mohammad Ilyas and the above Mashirs to his house in village Ghathar. He brought a gun from his Otaq and produced it before the S. H. O. Alongwith its licence. It was secured under a mashirnama.
On 23rd November, 1974 respondent Wali Dad, was arrested. He is also said to have led the police party to his Otaq which was locked. He unlocked the door and brought a gun and four cartridges and produced the same before Mr. Mohammad Ilyas which was secured in presence of Ahmed Ali and Ahmad Mashooq. Wali Dad bad no licence of this gun. P. Ws. Sheral, Momin, Haji Dost Mohammad, 'Abdul Sattar, Ali Gohar and Haji Mohammad were produced before the Magistrate at Kambar for state--ments under section 164, Cr. P. C. Which were recorded. On 26th November, 1974 respondent Waris is said to have produced a gun from his Otaq which was secured by S. H. O. In presence of Mashirs Siddiq and Ghulam Nabi. Waris had no licence for this gun. On 28th November, 1974 respondent Abdul Sattar is alleged to have led the S. H: O. Along--with the Mashirs Qamar Din and Ali Gul to his shop. From a room in front of the shop this respondent took out a gun from under the hedge and produced it before the, S. H. O. He had no licence for the gun which was secured under- Mashirnama. On 30th November, 1974 respondent Abdul Karim is alleged to have led the S. H. O. And Mashirs Mohammad Siddiq and Ghularn Nabi to his cattle pan. He took out a gun from under the thatchet roof and produced it before S. H. O. Lie had licence for this gun which was secured under Mashirnama. On 1 December, 1974 respondent Sabu is alleged to have led the S. H.
O. Alongwith the Mashirs, Ghulam Nabi and Ahmed Ali to "Barh" near his house. He took out a gun from there and produced it before the S. H. O. He had no licence for this gun. All the guns secured in this case as well as the revolver were sealed in separate parcels. The four empty cartridges secured from the scene of offence were also sealed. The sealed parcels containing the guns and cartridges were sent to Ballistic Expert for examination and report.
11. After completing the investigation the case was challaned before the Civil Judge and F.C.M., Kambar who committed the same to Sessions Court Larkana for trial.
12. In their statements, the respondents have totally denied the allegations of the prosecution regarding the murders of .1mamuddin, Nawab, Abdul Hamid and Saleh and have alleged that they have been implicated in this false case on account of enmity. Those respondents who had licensedst guns, have stated that on demand of the police they had produced the guns before the investigating Officer, while those respon--dents from whom unlicensed guns are alleged to have been secured, stated that the guns have been foisted upon them. It is not denied that deceased Imamuddin and others were tried for the murders of Haji Abdul Karim, father of respondent Karim Dino. The respondents have denied that they have committed these murders by way of revenge.
13. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the evidence of Tapedar Ghulam Hussain (Exh. 7), Ghulam Abbas P. C. Exh. 9, Ghulam Hyder P. C. Exh. 10, Complainant Mohammad Qabil Exh. 11, P. W. Ali Gohar Exh. 17, P. W. Haji Dost Mohammad Exh. 20, P. W. Haji Mohammad Exh. 24, P. W. Ziahuddin Exh. 26, Mashfr Ghulam Nabi, Exh. 32, Mashir Ali Gohar Exh. 37, Ahmed Mashooq Exh. 40, A. S. I Rahim Khan Exh. 30, Mr. Agha Mir S. I. Exh. 61, Mr. Mohammad Ilyas, S. I. Exh. 58 and Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, Ballistic Expert Exh.
62. Deposi--tion of Dr. Manikram recorded by the Committing Magistrate, was transferred to the trial Court's record as Exh. 66.
14. No other witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution. One of the conspicuous commissions in the trial is non-examination of P. W. Sheral alias Sher Mohammad who is said to have received pellet injuries in the house of deceased Mohammad Saleh where P. W. Haji Dost Mohammad had also received pellet- injuries, when accused Abdul Hadi Jan Mohammad and Ali Akbar had allegedly fired with guns at them and killed Mohammad Saleh. It may be noted that the name of this witness appears in the relevant column of the challan. The same remarks would apply to the non-examination of Momin and Abdul Fattah who are said to have seen the killing of Saleh.
This Abdul Fattah along--with Imamuddin, Abdul Hadi (other than respondent Abdul Hadi) and Mu khtar were accused in the murder case of Abdul Karim. The accused have noted any evidence in defence.
15. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of p-. W. Qabil, P. W. Ali Gohar, P. W. Ziabuddin, P. W. Haji Mohammad and P. W. Haji Dost Mohammad. The first 4 witnesses have claimed that they had seen accused Karimuddin, Hussain Bux, Khuda Bux, Abdul Khaliq, Waris and Walidad attacking Imamuddin and Nawab with gun. Shots and further to have seen accused Abdus Sattar, Sahibdino, Abdul Karim and Ghulam Rasool chasing Abdul Hamid and firing with guns at him. The above 4 witnesses have further claimed to have seen accused Abdul Hadi, Jan Mohammad and Ali Akbar chasing Saleh Mohammad who was running towards his house.
16. The evidence of P. W. Haji Dost Mohammad is to the effect that he was present in the house of Mohammad Selah when the 3 accused had come there in hot pursuit of Mohammad Saleh and fired with guns at him as a result of which Saleh had died. f-Iaji Dost Mohammad had also received stray pellet injuries and so also Slier Mohammad who was present there. In addition to the above evidence, as against accused/ respondent Abdul Hadi there is further evidence of the Ballistic Expert, Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed to the effect that the 4 crime empties sent to him by the police were found to have been fired with the double barrel gun No. 5402. According to the statement of Mr. Mohammad Ilyas this gun was secured from the possession of respondent Abdul Hadi who also held licence for the same. The learned trial Judge has disbelieved all the 5 eye-witnesses mentioned above. He has discussed the evidence of each one of them and given cogent reasons for disbelieving them. About complainant Qabil, P. W. Ziauddin and Haji Mohammad it is stated that they are highly interested in the complainant who was inimically disposed towards the accused /respondents. Further reason for disbelieving them was that their presence at the spot was not natural, that had they been present at the spot they would have received some injuries by stray pellets and that some of them have tried to suppress their interestedness with the prosecution. The evidence of P. W. Ali Gohar, the only independent eye-witness in this case, was disbelieved for the reason that be lived one mile away from the scene of offence and had no business to be in the complainant's village at 9 a. m. Which was the time of the incident. On that day he had to appear in the Court, of Civil Judge and F. C. M., Kambar in connection with a theft case in which he and Imamuddin were involved. In the ordinary course this witness should have been in the Court of Civil Judge and F. C. M., Kamber at 9 a. m. Which was the Court time. He has specifically stated that he always attended the Court in time and that on the date of hearing also he was in the Court of Kamber in time. His presence, on this ground, at the scene of offence was found to be doubtful.
Again the learned Trial Judge disbelieved him for the reason that had he been present with deceased Imamuddin at the time of the incident as alleged by the prosecution, then it was impossible that he would not have received some stray pellet injuries when the respondents namely karimdino, Hussain Bux, Khuda Bux, Abdul Khaliq, Waris and Walidad had indiscriminately - fired at them. P. W. Ali Gohar had admitted that he was with deceased Imamuddin at the time of the incident. If this is correct that it is not understandable how Ali Gohar could have escaped without receiving a scratch in the incident.
17. The evidence of Haji Dost Mohammad was also disbelieved by the learned trial Judge for the reason that he too 'had enmity with the accused persons. There bad been litigation between the relations of the accused and the relations of this witness, copies of which have been filed by accused Karimdino alongwith his statement. The bare word of Haji Dost Mohammad against the three accused /respondents namely Abdul Hadi, Ali Akbar and Jan Mohammad was not found sufficient to prove their involvement in the crime. Only two crime empties were found in the house of Saleh where Saleh is stated to have been killed in the presence of this witness. According to this witness all the three accused had fired with guns. Abdul Hadi had a double barrel gun and he is said to have fired two shots. If this is correct then at least 4 crime empties should have been recovered from the house of Saleh. This man was killed in his own house and not in the open ground, hence there was no possibility of the crime empties having been removed by the culprits in order to cause disappearance of the evidence. Again Haji Dost Mohammad stated in his statement before the Committing Magistrate that he had gone unconscious soon after receiving injuries on his back. He resiled from this statement in the trial Court. However, the learned Trial Judge concluded that if this witness had gone unconscious immediately after receiving injuries by stray pellets, he could not have identified the culprits with certainty.
18. The evidence of Ballistic Expert was also disbelieved by the learned trial Judge on the ground that it was not consistent with the ocular evidence. In this case in all 4 crime empties were recovered, two from near the dead body of Nawab and two from the house of Mohammad Saleh which was half furlong away from the place where Imamuddin and Nawab were lying dead.
According to Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed all these four empties were fired from the same gun i. e: the licensed gun of Abdul Hadi. It is nobody's case that accused/respondent Abdul Hadi had first fired two rounds at Nawab and Imamuddin and had reloaded the gun and thereafter chased Mohammad Saleh to his house and fired two more rounds at him. On the contrary all the four witnesses who had seen the killing of Imamuddin, Nawab and Abdul Hamid namely com--plainant Qabil, Ali Gohar, Ziabuddin and Haji Mohammad, have deposed that as soon as the 13 accused persons came out of the Otaq of Waris, the three of them namely Abdul Hadi, Jan Mohammad and Ali Akbar chased Mohammad Saleh up to his house. It is, therefore, clear that Abdul Hadi did not fire any shot from his gun at Nawab or Imamuddin. The recovery of two empties said to have been fired from Abdul Hadi's gun from near the dead body, Nawab is, therefore, doubtful. Moreover the gun secured from Abdul Hadi is admittedly a mass pro--duction gun as admitted by Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, Ballistic Expert. In a case reported in PLD 1960 Karachi page 674 it has been held that mass production weapons will give similar identification marks on cartridges fired from them and for that reason it is necessary to employ several similar weapons before coming to any definite conclusion as to whether the weapon seized in the case was to one used for firing. In taking this view the learned Single Judge who decided the case had relied on Burrad's "Identification of Fire Arms and Forensic Ballistics". In this case Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, Ballistic Expert has admitted that he did not hold any negative test by employing similar other weapons.
19. Again on the question of motive the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was not established so far as deceased Abdul Hamid. Nawab and Saleh are concerned. These deceased persons had nothing to do with the murder of Abdul Karim father of respondent accused Karimdino. Deceased Imamuddin alone was co-accused in Abdul Karim's murder case alongwith Makoo and Abdul Fattah. The main accused in .The case was Makoo who was responsible, according to the prosecution, for killing Abdul Karim. Imamuddin lived just adjacent to the houses of accused/respondents. If the respondents wanted to kill Imamuddin by way of revenge of Abdul Karim's murder which had taken place 2 fears before the present incident, then they could have easily killed him long ago: Moreover Abdul Fattah, one cl the accused in Abdul Karim's murder case, was present in the house of Mohammad Saleh when the latter was killed ; but Abdul Fattah was spared by the respondents for no apparent reason. Had the motive as alleged- by the prosecution been correct, then Abdul Fattah rather than Mohammad Saleh would have been the target of the 3 respondents who had entered the house of Saleh with fire-arms.
20. The learned counsel for the State has argued that the learned Trial Judge has erred in disbelieving the prosecution evidence inasmuch as the learned Judge has been sentimental, non- logical and speculative. He has referred to an observation of the learned Trial Judge in the judgment about accused Abdul Hadi. It is to the effect "It was impossi--ble to believe that this old man of 65 years with flowing beard might have taken part in this incident:" This observation might be sentimental but the finding of the learned Trial Judge as to the innocence of the respondent Abdul Hadi has not been based simply on the ground of his age and flowing beard. Other reasons have also been given which have been mentioned above. We are also unable to see how the learned Trial Judge has been non-logical and speculative in coming to the conclusion that the witnesses were interested and unbelievable and that corrobora--tion was totally lacking in the case.
21. It will be appropriate in this cent ext to refer to certain rules which have been laid by the highest Courts to be followed while determin--ing the propriety or otherwise of an order of acquittal. The earliest case referred to in this connection is of Sheo Swarup and others v. King---Emperor (AIR 1934 P C 2272). In this case the Privy Council held as under :- 'Sections 417, 418 and 428 of the Code give to the High Court full powers to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reserved. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted his trial (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt ; and (4) slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who bad the advantage of seeing the witnesses.."
In PLD 1954 P C page 170 it was held as under :- " In these circumstances, it seems to us that the true criterion to be applied by the Court of Appeal, if it regarded Mst. Shah Jahan's testimony as doubtful (as appears from the decision that Muhammad Azim was roped in unjustly) was to rely on the estimate of her credibility formed by the trial Court which had enjoyed the advan--tage of seeing and hearing the witness when she was under examina--tion in the witness-box. This Court has had occasion in a recent case, that of Khairdi Khan to emphasize the importance of giving a full measure of weight to the opinion formed by a Judge of first instance regarding the character and credibility of a witness who has been examined at length before him in relation to the facts of a case, and this is the case quite irrespective of whether the Judge makes' any observation with regard to credibility or not. It is enough that the Judge has disbelieved the witness, as in this case, for the Appellate Court to conclude that in the trial Judge's opinion, the witness was unworthy of belief. Where the appellate Court itself found it impossible to accept a great part of the witness's story, believing that such part was purely fabricated there need have been no hesitation in upholding the view formed of the witness's credibility as a whole by the trial Judge.
In the case of Abdul Majid v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Afairs, Government of East Pakistan (PLD 1964 SC 422) it was held as under :- In the case of reversal of an acquittal by the trial Judge, supported unanimously by the assessors, it is desirable that the Court should bear in mind that the full facts and circumstances of a case are laid open before a trial Court and thereby come within the comprehen--sion of that Court including a jury or assessors, sitting as part of the Court far more thoroughly and completely than it is ever possi--ble on the basis of a written record canvassed to advantage or dis--advantage by learned counsel in a Court of appeal. The trial Court being close to the scene of the occurrence and familiar with the ways and practices of the people involved, enjoys a marked advantage in the formation of a complete and balanced picture of the incident or incidents which go into the making of the prosecu--tion case as presented by witnesses of the locality. It also enjoys another advantage of a priceless character for such appreciation that the witnesses do not merely appear before it to give that evidence, which through repetition before the Police authorities and the committing Court they may be thought to be well schooled in, but also that which they under the probing stresses of cross--; examination.
In setting aside in acquittal in a case which rested wholly on direct evidence of witnesses, as much importance must be given as in any other case, to the rule which runs through the criminal jurispru--dence of our country as a golden thread that the benefit of every doubt must go to the accused person. Of course a view of the facts or the conclusion therein formed by a trial Judge or even by a jury is not binding on a Court of appeal in Pakistan. A verdict by a jury may be reversed by the High Court on a reference. Equally, a conclusion by a Judge may be reversed even whete it has led to an acquittal. But where the Judge has read the evidence fairly, and has formulated grounds of doubt which are not perverse or wholly illogical or unreasonable, there is a clear risk of departure from the rule of the benefit of the doubt in reversing his findings."
In another case namely Khurshid Ahmed v. Kabool Ahmed and others (PLD 1964 Kar. 356) it was held as under : - "The principles which justify interference by the superior Courts with orders of acquittals have repeatedly been laid down by our own Supreme Court and are to be found enunciated in the cases of Lalu v. The State Fateh Muhammad v. Bago and another, and this year again in the case of Sirujuddin v. Kala with certainty that none of the grounds on which the trial Court has purported to acquit is at all supportable, the superior Court will be reluctant to interfere even though upon the evidence on record and the facts and the circumstances of the case, this Court might well have come to a different conclusion it was trying the case."
In support of the above view H. T. Raymond, J. Who had written the judgment had relied on the cases decided by Supreme Court namely Laloo v. State (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 258) Mohammad Fateh v. Bago and others (PLD 1960 SC 286) and Sirajud--din v. Kala (PLD 1964 SC 26). It will also be advantageous to reproduce the observations made by Sajjad Ahmed, J. In the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Mohammad Azam and another (PLD 1969 SC 469), which run as under :- "The principles, which have been consistently followed by this Court for justifying interference with orders of acquittals passed by the High Courts, have been clearly laid down in the cases of Lalu v.
The State PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 258 and Fateh Mohammad v. Bago and others. They seem to indicate that unless it is possible to demonstrate with certainty that none of the grounds upon which the learned Judges have purported to acquit is at all supportable, this Court will be reluctant to interfere, even though upon the evidence on the record and the facts and circumstances of the case this Court might well have come to a different conclusion if it was trying the case."
Keeping in view the above rules which have been laid down by the Highest Courts froth time to time and which have been consistently followed in the appeal against acquittal, we are unable to find that the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge for disbelieving the evidence, suffer from perversity or illogicality or speculativeness as pleaded by the learned counsel for the State. We have thoroughly gone through the case and are inclined to agree with the learned Trial Judge that the oral testimony relied upon by the prosecution is of witnesses who are not only interested but whose evidence have not been corroborated on material particulars. Reference in this connection may be made to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bagh Ali v. The State (PLD 1973 SC 321). It has been held in this case that ocular evidence in order to carry conviction of capital charge must come from unimpleachable source or must be supported by some strong circumstances. In the present case the evidence has not come from unimpeachable source. Again whet motive is specifically pleaded but is proved to be false, as in the present case, then it must also reflect adversely on the credibility of the witnesses. In the case of Nazir Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1974 Kar. 274) it has been held as under :- "When a motive is alleged by the prosecution but which was not only not proved but had been completely abandoned at the trial and which is found to be false, it becomes all the more necessary to scrutinize the credentials of the witnesses who by their evidence direct or indirect speak about the guilt of an accused person on the premises of a false motive. The Courts should be very much on their guard to accept the story of the prosecution of which the motive is an important constituent."
The above view was based on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Habibullah and others v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 127).
22. In view of the above legal position and the state of evidence as discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge in this case.
Consequently the appeal is dismissed.